Dismissed
T Linga Reddy v. Dayawar Kishan
Telangana HCCRP/1266/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGHCOURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THETWENTY THIRDDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTYONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL R EVISION PETIT ION NO:1 266 0F 2020
Petition undersection'1 15 of c.P.C. against the action of the respondents depositing theamount of Rs.44'1 3,856/- before the Hon,blePrincipal Districtand Sessions Judge,Nizamabad in EP No' 38 oI 2014 in O'S No 10 of 2009 on 4.11.2020 is erroneousand contrary to law'
Between:
T.LingaReddy,S/o.tr/allaReddy,Agedabout5Tyears'OccPathalogist'Rl/o Khaleelwadi. Nizamabad.
...Petitioner
AND
2.parshi shashank,s/o. Parshi Laxman Rao,.Aged about 37 years, occ.Private - EriiJv""l ny",. 5i-6-174, saraswathinagar, Nizamabad'
IAN O: 1O F 2020
PetitionunderSection,l51CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavitfiled therewith the High court may be pleasedto stay all further proceedingsinE.PNo.3Sol2Ol4ino'sNo.l0of200gonthefileofthecourtofthe Principal DistrictJudge, at Nizamabad'
Counselfor the Petitioner:SRl. BRAHMADANDI RAMESH(not present)
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos'1 and 3: SRI V' RAVI KIRANRAO
Counsel for theRespondent No'2: SRI N' SRUSHMAN REDDY
The Court madethe following:ORDER
/,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T,VINODKUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1266 of2020
ORDER:
Despite the matter beingpart-heard and listed underthe caption 'for orders' on 12.04.2021, there was no representatlon onbehalf of the petitioner, though the name of the learned counsel for thepetitioneris shown in the cause list, and therefore, theCRP was directedto be listed today, i.e. 23.04.2021, under the caption'for dismissal'.
Today also, though the matter is listed under thecaption 'for dismissal', there is no representation on behalf of thepetitioner.llence, it is presumed that thepetitioner does not intend topursue theCRP.
Accordingly, the civil revisionpetition is dismissed fornon-
prosecution. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in
the light of this flnal order. No order as to costs.
1
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT FEGISTRAR (fr" SECTION OFFICER
To,
'1 . The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. 2. One CC to Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC]
MMK
HIGH COURT
DATED:2310412021
ORDER
CRP.No.1266 ol 2020
OF T
J ii'at, s 'll
l
C s$ !:
l IL
i
, $
DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION FOR NONPROSECUTION,
6 %,
T.LingaReddy
Davawar Kishan
Parshi Shashank
Kola Ram Gupta
T. Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court